Christians do not all share the same views on the relationship between church and state, or how the discipleship of the individual should inform their involvement in the political realm.  Brothers Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr held a debate in the 1930’s representing two opposing ethical philosophies on how a Christian worldview should inform national decisions.  I’m hoping that reviewing this can help me (maybe you too?) reflect on the way I speak about another person’s stance on Christianity and government before I call them out.

In the years leading to WWII, America waited on the sidelines, watching as Japan laid waste to China.  Reinhold would lead the collective imagination of America for decades with his proposals for “just war,” and his work Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932).  His idea was simple, and I’m sure you’re familiar with it: “when collective powers (such as a tyrannical state) harm the weak, then other states (especially states indebted to Christian religion) can or must use force to combat them” (summary by Diana Butler Bass).  Reinhold argued, “As long as the world of man remains a place where nature and God, the real and the ideal, meet, human progress will depend upon the judicious use of the forces of nature in the service of the ideal” (See his full argument here).  In other words, it is the moral obligation of the big kid to stop the bully from beating up the kid that can’t defend herself, even if the big kid must beat up the bully to stop them…on a national level.

This was in response to H. Richard’s argument that violence to stop violence is NOT the way of Christ.  Richard, who would later write the classic Christ and Culture (1951), called for “non-involvement… an inactivity then is demanded which will be profoundly active in rigid self-analysis” (see his full argument here).  In other words, we need to reflect on the ways we are equally responsible for the evils being done in other countries.  Richard argued that this is the only way to truly end all wars, when a country waits on the sidelines and discovers another solution besides war and political punishments (such as tariffs, embargoes, etc.).  It is difficult and maybe even demoralizing to watch a bully destroy the helpless kid (on a national level), but Richard believed that showing works of mercy and caring for the wounded was enough to bring about real national transformation.

Now, both of these arguments are riddled with complications and problems.  For starters, we don’t exist in a world where there is a single voice of consciousness helping the nation process what we’re experiencing.  Instead we have our echo chambers reinforcing our biases. Just think about your own reasons for defending or denouncing the American War in Iraq.  And then think about your own reasons for defending or denouncing American non-involvement in Syria.  Why would you support action in one place but not the other?  Why would you denounce action in one place but demand it elsewhere?

Right now, many of us are Reinholds.  We are devastated by all that’s wrong, and we’re not going to sit back and watch the bullies win.  Reinholds need to take one step back and ask ourselves: will our use of force, will our verbal outrage, will that angry post help bring about the kingdom of God? Others are Richards, hoping that our acts of mercy will somehow make a difference and prove a better way.  Richards need to take a step back and ask ourselves: is this enough?  Are we doing this more to protect ourselves than out of a Christ-like concern for the defenseless?  And how are we doing this on an international level?

I’d love to hear your constructive thoughts on this.  Something more profound than, “You’re the most ignorant, hate-filled person I’ve ever met,” which I seem to be getting a lot these days.

P.S. I was recently interviewed on the Podcast: Colloquy, Interrupted.  Check it out here.

P.S.S. For everyone cringing that this post was about the Niebuhr’s, just wait.  Yoder’s coming!